Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Valley Juice


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE and REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Spring Valley Juice

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable product line. Unable to find substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Suggest redirect to Cadbury Schweppes, the company who owns the line. SummerPhD (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It used to be an independent company. Here's a reference:
 * Cadbury 'still seeks blend with Orangina', The Telegraph, November 30, 2000 Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, they were. If we have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources about Spring Valley Juice, we should certainly keep it as a separate article. As it stands now, we don't have that coverage, thus the redirect to the well sourced Cadbury Schweppes. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This is Articles for Deletion, not redirection. And the topic is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do not see which of the criteria for a speedy keep you feel this falls under. Redirect is a common close for non-notable subjects where there is a related subject that is notable. Notability for a product line/former company generally falls under Notability (organizations and companies), calling for "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The sourcing for this article is a press release and a single sentence in another source. I do not see significant coverage for the juice line or the previous company, though the current company, Cadbury Schweppes, clearly is. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SK #1 states, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action ...". And the source which I cited contains more than a single sentence - it's an article.  The topic is also covered in numerous sources such as Australian food: the complete reference to the Australian food industry, Food Australia: official journal of CAFTA and AIFST, Plunkett's Food Industry Almanac, &c.  Essentially, it is a major juice brand and so bringing it to AFD was a bad idea.  WP:AFD states emphatically, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.".  Please take note. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify. I am specifically suggesting that we delete the article and add a redirect in its place because the juice line is not notable. Thus, not a speedy keep on that basis, thanks. If you feel the article can be fixed through normal editing, and is the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, I would suggest you do some of that, rather than batting around here, then bring up the improved article status and I will withdraw my nomination, which would be a speedy keep. I have not found such coverage. Maybe you have. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect as proposed. When it was an independent company it was apparently not notable. The only Google News hits are about its acquisition by Cadbury. As for listing something here when you really think it should become a redirect, I have done that myself if I felt the redirect might be controversial. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant    talk    15:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete current content, then redirect if necessary. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.